ANDREWS v. SCOTTON—2 BLAND. 619

this Court over this matter was as extensively and beneficially exer-
cised, on its being presented by petition, as it could have been in
any other way; and the mode by petition is certainly the most
usual and proper, it' not the only one in which it ought to have
been presented. Every objection which this purchaser chose to
make; and, no doubt, every one which he thought could be made,
with any degree of plausibility, against the ratification of this
sale, has been made, fully and maturely investigated, considered
and decided upon here; and that judgment has been affirmed by
the * Court of Appeals. The contract between this Court

and this purchaser is, therefore, now absolute, complete and 653
of record.

But now, in answer to an order calling on him to pay the pur-
chase money, he says, that relief, or the means of forcing him to
pay can only be obtained by a bill in equity, or a suit at law. A
bill in equity in this Court would only be going over the same
ground, that has already been gone over. It would be idle repe-
tition, an unnecessary and improper proceeding; and, therefore,
cannot be allowed. This purchaser stands charged by the record
and proceedings, now here, as the debtor of this Court, for the
benefit of its suitors, to a certain amount upon a judicial sale and
contract, which has been duly investigated, and absolutely ratified
and confirmed.

It is said, however, that a suit at law must be brought upon this
contract. By whom must it be brought ? Was a suit at law,
grounded merely upon an order of Chancery, ratifying a sale made
under a decree, ever before heard off Lord Ilardwicke, as we
have seen, has expressly declared, that there can be no remedy
at law where all the contract arises out of the acts of the Court
amounting to a decree. But this Court is to be regarded as the
vendor; and as no bond or note has been taken from this pur-
chaser, which could enable the parties interested to put their claim
against him into the common law form of an action at law, how,
or in what manner, is such an action to be brought ? Must they
bring an action of debt, of assumpsit, or a special action on the
case ?

In all cases of this sort, where property has been sold under a
decree to pay debts, or for other purposes, and no bonds or notes
have been taken, there seems to be an insuperable difficulty in
making proper parties to try the right at law to the whole purchase
money, or to any dividend of it, either as against the purchaser,
or any one or more of the litigating parties to the suit in equity.
The powers of the trustee, if he takes no bonds or notes, cease
with the ratification of the sale, as to all the purposes of a suit at
law. The decree clothes him with no power to sue at law; and if
it did, or this Court were specially to direct him to sue, it must
put into his hands the cause of action, the evidence of the debt,